The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the amount of KRW 5 million, the amount of KRW 1, the amount of KRW 400,00,000, the amount of KRW 500,000, the amount of KRW 1, the amount of

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

Article 56(1) main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), effective July 17, 2018, where a court sentences a person to a sex offense against a child or youth or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense") (excluding a person who has been sentenced to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)) or a person subject to the suspension or exemption of the execution of all or part of the sentence by a judgment (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final and conclusive) and imposes an order to operate a child or youth-related institution, etc., or to prevent the person from operating an employment-related institution, etc., or providing actual labor, to a child or youth-related institution, etc., for a certain period from the date on which the execution of the sentence is terminated or suspended or exempted (hereinafter referred to as "restricted order on employment") is simultaneously sentenced to the judgment of a sex offense

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda to the same law provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

Therefore, the defendant who committed a sex offense should be sentenced to or exempted from the employment restriction order.

Since the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352), there was no provision on the employment restriction order, the lower court did not determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order or exempted the employment restriction order.

Since the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that issues an employment restriction order simultaneously with the judgment of a sex offense case, if all or part of the employment restriction order is illegal, it does not err in the remaining part of the defendant case.